Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe because he himself witnessed Marina getting the black eye. The time he described her falling down -- baby in arms -- her head hitting the ground with such a thud that he thought she was seriously inured.

If I had witnessed that Marina falling incident and Lee's cruel and humiliating response to it like Gregory...I would have hated LHO from that point on.

I can't believe Gregory didn't feel the same way towards Lee.

5 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Jim DiEugenio’s “Posthumous Assassination of JFK” changed my whole view of Kennedy when I read it for the first time many years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, as a Gen X kid growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I thought all the tawdry tales about JFK’s sex life had to be true. After all, it was in People Magazine, so it’s a fact, right?

After tracing most of these stories back to their dubious sources, they simply fall apart. They don’t hold up to scrutiny (Pics, or it didn’t happen!)

As I have been expressing earlier on this thread...let us consider the possibility that JFK truly was that sexually addicted promiscuous, even during his presidency?

Yes, it was reckless and risky in the national security sense and for that reason alone seriously wrong. It was also wrong in the traditional marriage vow violating ( and especially Catholic church teachings) sense.

It would have been perfect world wonderful if on top of JFK's many other high moral  value traits he could have been a Jimmy Carter in the marriage vow honoring and carnal lust control department.

I have learned to be much more tolerant and liberal toward judging others in the marriage vow breaking realm in my 71 years.

There are simply too many reasons why so many couples veer from this particular vow. One of the toughest to keep in any marriage imo. American life styles are just too arbitrarily complicated, stressful and even tempting in keeping things on the straight and narrow 24/7, year in and year out.

I have separated JFK's alleged sexual promiscuity sinning from the sins of other U.S. Presidents in the category of moral leadership and Constitution and criminal law violating value importance.

LBJ, Nixon, maybe Bush senior and now Trump? 

Read Russ Baker's, Phillip Nelson and yes, even Barr McCllellans books and several others to consider or at least contemplate the true depth of corruption and wrong doing of these other presidents compared to JFK's reported philandering.

JFK was an American Democracy and equal rights values respecting gift to America versus those other darkly nefarious corrupt characters imo.

Even if Mary Meyer was his sometimes lover and LSD dealer.

And if it did happen, to quote a future president, “when you’re famous, they let you do it!” 😉 

DJT is such a crude thinking and speaking man. JFK never was. 

Really separates them in the class department. Total versus none.

8 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I'm sure he found her attractive. Is your source his WC testimony or this new book?

It's a surmised life experience logic based guess.

Of course P. Gregory would never state he had personal affection feelings for Marina.

That would motive muck up everything.

He has to look personally dispassionate regards Marina for his book and his historical summary of them to be taken seriously.

Look, even "I" was in love with Marina Oswald! Protectively and amorously so.

And I was just 12 to 13 years old when she first started appearing on national TV.

Who "wasn't" in love with the young, fragile and sparkling blue-eyed beauty?

4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

In regard to the New York Times story about Justice Alito and the leaks of opinions from the Supreme Court, here is the response I received yesterday from the Times that my comment on its article was being published:

Your comment has been approved! Thank you for sharing your thoughts with The New York Times community. Douglas Caddy | Houston, Texas Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were honored at the 40th anniversary dinner of the far-right Federalist Society on November 10 in Washington, D.C. These justices and Chief Justice Roberts are prepared to impose their extremist and hypocritical opinions on 340 million Americans

Great! Congratulations Doug.

If any of our members happen to be considering visiting Carmel, Ca for the Thanksgiving week, just thought you may like to know of at least one fine restaurant's Thanksgiving meal offering for that day. 

• Aubergine at L’arberge: 6 course Prefix with wine pairings, $495 per person.

Kirk, Paul ...how bout it?

My wife and I are too 71 year old tired and strapped to do much that day in the way of food.

We will be splitting a Turkey sandwich from our favorite local deli...with a couple of small paper cups of cranberry sauce included.

Maybe a couple of moon pies for dessert?

My wife over-ruled my first choice of a KFC two piece meal.

25 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Was Oz's supposed exhibitionism later set up with the story that, on returning from Russia, he was disappointed in the lack of press turnout?

It is the ultimate act of attention seeking insanity to go from being let down because the press in Dallas wasn't interested in you and your Russia defecting story to blowing the head off of JFK to finally get this craved splash attention.

At least LHO expressed a reason for trying to take out General Walker. Comparing him to Hitler in his fascist political promoting activities.

However, there just isn't "anything" in Oswald's expressed words, writings and actions to similarly explain his motivation for wanting to so brutally blow apart JFK.

A man who along with his brother also considered General Walker as a dangerous fascist nut to the point of arresting him and having him involuntarily thrown into a mental ward facility!

You'd think Oswald might have admired JFK and RFK for doing this.

Oswald never wavered in his denial of doing JFK.

If that's grand deed attention seeking...what isn't?

23 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

What makes you think Paul was romantically attracted to Marina, and that Lee sensed this?

By Gregory's own words!

He made it a point to express his personal feeling observation of Marina being a very pretty girl. As a 22 year old himself ( Marina's age ) you think he could feel this about her and "not" feel physical attraction toward her?

He also was so personal feeling effected by one specific incident involving Marina he makes a point of including this in his book.

One day, when Marina fell back off some front porch steps with baby June in her arms and crashed down on her back, Gregory expressed and revealed his "Knight In Shining Armor" protective feelings for the fair maiden Marina by ripping apart her cruel, no good abusive husband Lee for not just ignoring her possible injury but humiliating her as well by calling her stupid!

There is a point in feeling protective over an abused young beautiful woman like Marina, where it can easily evolve into feelings of rescuing and competitive possessiveness.

Often including feeling harm and banishment wishing anger toward the abuser.

When Gregory also shares a specific sympathy for Marina in her "drowning cat" appearance after sharing his feelings regards her prettiness I see this as even more revealing of deeper personal feelings for her.

My observations are subjective I know. Yet, I trust they are as logical as any contrary ones.

On 11/18/2022 at 10:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I will say this; it is true that when a man or woman is cut down somewhere near their prime in life, or in JFK’s case, just past the midpoint (he was ill), that the result can be that they become larger in death, than in life, or they are remembered as perfect, because the world didn’t see them grow old and foolish. In JFK’s case, some will choose to revere him, a small minority will revile him and the rest will be apathetic. The words remain, as does the purple heart, as enough evidence of his will to create peace, make rapprochement’s and secure detente’s. To stop the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Remember the America that he inherited from old Eisenhower? The one where people of ethnic minorities daren’t hold their heads high? Their lives became a little bit better because this guy and his brother existed and spoke up. They paid in blood for their choices. Perhaps if we take a step back for a moment and ask; have you had a better president / leader since? 
Has America ever recovered? 

Here Here.

On 11/15/2022 at 7:55 PM, Cory Santos said:

Cliff and I had an interesting debate the other night over prettiest First Ladies.   Apparently there are lists online with real debates about them.  It is surprising who is usually top three.   

My top three?

Jackie Kennedy number 1 by far.

Number 2: Pat Nixon.

Number 3: Rosalynn Carter.

One must consider the possibility that Gregory's father tried to get as far away from his  Oswald interaction history story not just out of shame for helping a Marxist JFK killing traitor like Oswald, but to avoid the most obvious and imo important public scrutiny question:

If Oswald's Russian was truly as bad as his son Paul's described in this new book...

Why would he ( Paul's father and a Russian native language expert ) put his official stamp of approval ( his name ) on a letter back to the state of Texas Employment stating he felt Lee Oswald was proficient enough to translate Russian as a means of employment?

Young Paul Gregory seemed personally enamored with Marina. Seemed Lee sensed Marina had this effect on many of the males that came into their personal space.

And he was right imo.

5 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Staughton Lynd, Historian and Activist Turned Labor Lawyer, Dies at 92

After being blacklisted from academia for his antiwar activity, he became an organizer among steel workers in the industrial Midwest.

 The activist and historian Staughton Lynd in 2019. “At age 16 and 17, I wanted to find a way to change the world,” he said in 2010. “Just as I do at age 79.”

By Clay Risen

Nov. 18, 2022

Staughton Lynd, a historian and lawyer who over a long and varied career organized schools for Black children in Mississippi, led antiwar protests in Washington and fought for labor rights in the industrial Midwest, died on Thursday in the town of Warren, in northeast Ohio. He was 92.

His wife and frequent collaborator, Alice Lynd, said his death, at a hospital, was caused by multiple organ failure.

Mr. Lynd was one of the last of a generation of radical academics — including his friend and colleague Howard Zinn — who in the 1960s overthrew their predecessors’ obsession with detached, objective scholarship in favor of political engagement.

Many of his colleagues stayed within the bounds of academia, but Mr. Lynd burst beyond them. As a young professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, he led students in marches against nuclear weapons. In 1964 he was one of the main organizers behind Freedom Summer, which brought Northern college students to Mississippi to teach and organize in Black communities.

In 1965 Mr. Lynd joined another radical historian, Herbert Aptheker, and a founder of Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden, on a trip to North Vietnam. There they met with Communist leaders and made global headlines, but also numerous enemies back home. The trip effectively ended Mr. Lynd’s career at Yale, where he had moved just a year before.

Mr. Lynd was not a communist, though he was often mistaken for one. Instead he made his own way on the left, drawing equal inspiration from Marxism, American abolitionism and Quaker pacifism — a diversity that helped explain his involvement with so many different movements.

“Staughton was very unusual,” Gar Alperovitz, a historian who wrote several books with Mr. Lynd, said in a phone interview. “He walked a path that was his own. And when it intersected with the activist groups on the progressive left, he would be involved. But he was a very moral political figure rather than a tactical one.”

In age he fell between the Old Left, which cut its teeth in the 1930s and ’40s, and the New, which was coming up in the ’60s. There was no question where his loyalty lay: He reveled in the impassioned spontaneity he encountered as a professor on college campuses, and students flocked to him in turn.

At Yale they would cram into his office or gather on his living room floor to hear him take on all comers, staking positions to the left even of outspoken liberals like the Yale chaplain William Sloane Coffin, a frequent verbal sparring partner.

Even as he developed a following as an agitator, he built a reputation as a pathbreaking historian. His best-known book, “The Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism” (1968), opened new ground by identifying members of the Revolutionary War generation who embraced abolition and equality, and it won praise even from establishment historians.

“Of all the New Left historians, only Staughton Lynd appears able to combine the techniques of historical scholarship with the commitment to social reform,” David Herbert Donald wrote in a 1968 review in Commentary.

But his academic star soon fizzled out. By the end of the 1960s, his outspoken activism had drawn the attention of the F.B.I. and gotten him blacklisted from higher education, even from small urban colleges in Chicago, where he and his family had moved in 1968.

He pivoted, involving himself in labor organizing among the factories that lined the southern shores of Lake Michigan. He received a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1976, after which he and his wife moved to Youngstown, Ohio, where workers, union leaders and owners were fighting over the impending closure of the city’s steel mills.

To the frustration of both the union bosses and the mill owners, he sided with the rank and file, writing a handbook for workers trying to navigate the legal system. In the early 1980s he helped lead a high-profile effort to turn the mills over to a worker-owned cooperative. Though the effort failed, it brought him renewed acclaim on the left.

He did much of his later work alongside his wife. She wrote several books with him and, after getting her own law degree, joined him as a partner. They officially retired in 1996 but continued taking pro bono cases, this time with a focus on the death penalty and prison reform.

“Whether in his pathbreaking historical work on the roots of American radicalism, his active participation in campaigns for civil rights, his crucial role in steps toward democratization of the economy, Staughton Lynd was always in the forefront of struggle, a model of integrity, courage, and farsighted understanding of what must be done if there is to be a livable world,” the linguist and left-wing scholar Noam Chomsky wrote in an email.

Staughton Craig Lynd was born on Nov. 22, 1929, the same year that his parents, the sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd, published their book “Middletown,” based on their research in Muncie, Ind. It was one of the first books to offer a comprehensive study of an American community, and it established them as two of the country’s best-known academics.

The Lynds lived in New York City — Robert Lynd taught at Columbia, while Helen Lynd taught at Sarah Lawrence College — but Staughton was born in a hospital in Philadelphia because his mother preferred the doctors there.

He grew up among the New York intellectual set, attending the Ethical Culture School and the Fieldston School, and entered Harvard in 1946.

He studied social relations, a popular but now defunct major. In his free time he dabbled in radical politics, joining the Communist Party-aligned John Reed Club and briefly participating in two Trotskyist organizations on campus.

During the 1950 summer school session he met Alice Niles, a student at Radcliffe. They married the next year.

After graduating in 1951, he spent time studying urban planning before being drafted into the Army in 1953. As a conscientious objector, he was given a noncombat role, despite the continuing Korean War.

A year later, though, he received a dishonorable discharge after Army investigators dug up his Communist affiliations in college; they also highlighted his mother’s career as a “modern” professional woman.

He and others with similar disqualifications appealed, and the Supreme Court eventually ordered the Army to give them honorable discharges instead. The change in status allowed Mr. Lynd to take advantage of the G.I. Bill, which he used to pay for graduate school.

But first, he and Alice spent three years living on a Quaker commune in northern Georgia. They then spent six months in a similar community in New Jersey, where he first met Mr. Dellinger, a like-minded pacifist who brought him on as an editor at his magazine, Liberation.

The Lynds finally returned to New York City, where Mr. Lynd worked for a tenants’ rights organization on the Lower East Side and pursued a history doctorate at Columbia.

He received his degree, with a dissertation on New York State during the Revolutionary War, in 1962. By then he and Alice were already in Atlanta, where he got a job teaching at Spelman (and where Mrs. Lynd babysat the children of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a neighbor).

Among his colleagues was Mr. Zinn, who would be fired for his activism in 1963, and among his students was Alice Walker, who would go on to write “The Color Purple.”

Mr. Lynd became actively involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and grew particularly close to one of its leaders, Bob Moses, a similarly cerebral activist. In 1964 Mr. Lynd was chosen to oversee the educational component of Freedom Summer, instituting curriculums and training teachers for the many schools that were to open across Mississippi.

He was in Oxford, Ohio, where organizers gathered before heading to Mississippi, when he first heard about the kidnapping and murder of the civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.

“I’ll never forget Mickey Schwerner’s wife, Rita, pacing one of the rooms all night long, waiting for word of some kind,” he wrote in The Bill of Rights Journal in 1988.

That fall Mr. Lynd joined the Yale history department, though by then he was spending more and more of his time as an activist.

In June 1965 he joined another antiwar protester in a lonely demonstration outside the Pentagon. Almost immediately, dozens of military police officers had surrounded them.

“What in the cotton-picking world do you think you’re doing?” he recalled one of them asking.

He straightened himself up, looked at the officer, and replied: “You don’t understand. We’re the first of thousands.”

His trip later that year to North Vietnam, and a 1966 trip to London, where he blasted American foreign policy on the BBC, persuaded the State Department to revoke his passport.

 

Mr. Lynd’s activism brought waves of criticism from alumni and pressure on Yale’s president, Kingman Brewster, to fire him. Mr. Brewster resisted, but he let it be known, quietly, that Mr. Lynd was unlikely to receive tenure.

In 1968 the Lynds moved again, to Chicago, where Mr. Lynd was eager to get involved with the labor movement. He taught briefly at two local schools, Roosevelt University and Columbia College, and applied unsuccessfully to others. But he failed to find a permanent contract — the result, he insisted, of a concerted effort to blacklist him from teaching.

He then worked briefly for the social activist Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, and he and Alice Lynd wrote an oral history of Chicago labor, “Rank and File: Personal Histories by Working-Class Organizers” (1973).

Mr. Lynd wrote more than 20 more books and extended pamphlets, mostly about labor organizing and prison reform. An exception was “Stepping Stones: Memoir of a Life Together” (2009), written with his wife.

A year later, an interviewer for Harvard Magazine asked him why, after such a long career, he was still so active.

“At age 16 and 17, I wanted to find a way to change the world,” he said. “Just as I do at age 79.”

 

Clay Risen is an obituaries reporter for The Times. Previously, he was a senior editor on the Politics desk and a deputy op-ed editor on the Opinion desk. He is the author, most recently, of “Bourbon: The Story of Kentucky Whiskey.” @risenc

 

•  

 

Wow!  Thanks for posting this.

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

What a sense of things she had:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/216102482094901700/

Dated Nov 22nd 1963 

My Gad...if that isn't romantic on the grandest scale...what is?

Why downplay or diminish the JFK and Jackie glamour story?

Why don't we embrace it as the inspiring world-wide American leader image appeal enhancing event it was?

15 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hahaha 🙈🤣🤣 

Lost in transition perhaps, Sandy. 

 

Just now, Cory Santos said:

Sure 

Lots of ways

Cory@SantosLawOffices.com

Or

CorySantosLaw.com

Will do so in an hour or so if that's okay.

Just now, Cory Santos said:

All interesting responses.   

CS...any way I can send you a message outside of the forum?

My Gad!

Think how traumatizing the situation was for Marina starting on 11,22,1963.

This 22 year young, non-english speaking foreign born woman with infant child and after just giving birth to another and totally depended on others for everything and no normal protective mother or father or other relative figure to lean on yet having an oppressively controlling and nutty mother-in-law telling her what to do ... 

then has to face the full scary force of frantic and suspicious police and federal agency people and flash bulb blinding and yelling world press, all confronting her at once with the gut wrenching charge of her husband committing not just one but two brutally horrific world changing murders!

And with the fear that her and her own children's lives and security were seriously at stake at the same time!

Marina didn't know what would happen to her and her children. Would they be attacked by angry citizens? Would the police arrest her and suspect her of some spy or collusion activity?

She had to frantically worry about everything she said at every second to everyone.

She had to hide the backyard photo. Putting it in her shoe? She had to keep her husband's General Walker shooting secret.

34 year old Jackie Kennedy with massive personal sympathy support had to be under a doctor's care and taking lots of sedatives to get through her trauma.

22 year old Marina, poorer than poor, alone, scared out of her mind and with NO emotional support at all got through her equally horrific trauma on her own?  With no medical sedative help?

That was an astoundingly amazing personal strength Marina Oswald story imo.

Cory, JFK and Jackie K. had no where near the celebrity exposure and fame ( both here and worldwide ) before and right up to JFK's election to office.

However starting from that point on combined with the massive media coverage of the world's most powerful man and most glamorous political couple, by 1963 they had ascended to the unprecedented celebrity icon level I described.

I don't present this JFK and Jackie attraction and popularity sensation proposition because I was personally in love with them and specifically Jackie. I was just 12 years old in 1963.

However, if one just reads and studies even a little of the reported and recorded massive political and celebrity media coverage of them both here and worldwide during that time, it's irrefutable that they were on a level of celebrity unlike anything we and the rest of the world had ever seen.

With every parade trip abroad, JFK's popularity ( and Jackie's if she accompanied him ) just increased exponentially. Wherever JFK went, the crowds were huge and cheering wildly. It was serious adoration.

I later knew people who traveled abroad during JFK's presidency and they related that JFK and Jackie's faces graced the covers of pop culture magazines in every big city. Always in a glamorous way.

Jackie became the most celebrity media followed woman on Earth. Her looks and bearing were the epitome of inspiring and envied physical beauty, fashion and education class.

As JFK hilariously once joked in a public speech, Jackie and her latest hair and fashion styles were of more interest to the world press than his and LBJ's doings.

JFK and Jackie had become the world's most fascinating and media covered celebrities. That's not an exaggeration born out of my own adulation and attraction to them.

I posted the Santa Monica Ca. beach scene photo of an almost naked dripping wet JFK being chased and groped by a mob of squealing carnal desire crazed women because imo this photo perfectly exemplified the effect on American women JFK had after his image and news coverage videos had been thrust thousands of times into their everyday lives and world.

Sex appeal in political election candidates does effect voters, especially women regards male candidates imo.

In all the presidential elections I have witnessed, I have seen hundreds of early entry candidates that you just knew were never going to garner enough of the physical attraction vote from the get go.

I do not know the official percentage of the female vote JFK won in the 1960 election.

However, my guess is in the 1964 election he would have won at least 10 to 20% more, just because of his unprecedented crazed sexual attraction effect on women.

Are that many women voters that susceptible to such a visceral emotion based bias? 

In JFK's case, I believe so. Look at that JFK crazed women attack beach scene photo again.

Those wild-eyed women were sexualized zombies and obviously "in love" with JFK!

The thousands of female sidewalk crowd persons in the 11,22, 1963 Dallas motorcade were also excitedly screaming, smiling and waving at JFK and Jackie as well. OMG, there he is! Ohhh he "is" as handsome as he looks in the magazines and on TV! Poor LBJ wasn't even noticed or waved at in his plain, unadorned follow up car.

Same with that Love Field airport crowd that went screaming turned on nuts when JFK and Jackie actually came to them and shook their hands!

That was the physical attraction effect reality with JFK and Jackie!

These millions didn't want their fantasy couple removed from office. It was too pleasurable to see them in the news and magazines every day.

And lastly, my guess is also that JFK may have naively trusted his security people to have at least kept a binocular check on opened high building floor windows along his parade route as he was passing underneath them.

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

There is quite a bit to unpack here, Cory.  Firstly, I won’t hold your relationship with Cliff against you. I am sure he has his moments. Though I haven’t seen his convincing side yet. 🙂 

Let me start by pointing out the obvious; we can take any hero in history and find people who will vilify them. We can also find some of the most heinous figures in history still being worshipped in small pockets here and there (there is a whole battalion of them in Ukraine). Did you feel you were getting objective opinions from the Cuban’s? That’s putting aside the stereotypes of Latinos being full of emotion and passion. Are the facts settled on whether JFK was to blame for the failed BOP invasion, or was it the work of Dulles and Bissell (CIA)? I know the Helms and Sturgis version. 
What does a forensic analysis tell you? The plan failed, the exiles/emigre’s didn’t get their country back, they lost friends and relatives, saw tragedy. It was the last time that they came close to their dream. How should they remember it? Are these guys supporters of Batista, already battle scared, filled with hate from those experiences? They were missing a lot of the picture too. Their suffering was what they knew and saw. They are entitled to views from their experiences. They are no less vulnerable to groupthink than any other people. IMHO they were used / taken advantage of to a degree by the CIA and politicians.  
 

With your point about the Cuban’s views, you could also have asked some ex mob guys and even some Texan Republicans to recant their feelings on JFK. If we are to judge JFK after his short time in office, how many people mourned his death, shed tears, felt loss? They outnumber any of his critics not just substantially, emphatically. Where you are right is; there are always two side to a coin, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. 
 

As for Marilyn Monroe, the whole thing has been debated here until people are blue in the face. You weren’t witness to it and neither was I. We really suffer when it comes to credible evidence. What we are not short of is salacious gossip and people who want to say that they knew something. The braggadocios nature of people looking to impress, or somehow raise their own social status by linking themselves to someone famous is never in short supply. Even memories are emotional, they change over time. 
 

This particular bit doesn’t sound very balanced at all, Cory. I guess he was foolish thinking that the Secret Service would do their job, stick to oaths they swore, and keep him safe. That again is something that has been debated to death. Foolish for thinking that he could visit a state in a democracy where he was elected president. What kind of a democracy do you have if the president can’t travel? What you call foolishness, I may call courage. What kind of a leader hides from the people? Not one i’d want.
 

What were JFK’s approval ratings like just before he died? I think you’re perhaps presenting a lob sided perspective, not an objective or neutral one, which is what you aimed to do in the face of Joe and I expressing our admiration for the 35th president. 
 

i will say this; it is true that when a man or woman is cut down somewhere near their prime in life, or in JFK’s case, just past the midpoint (he was ill), that the result can be that they become larger in death, than in life, or they are remembered as perfect, because the world didn’t see them grow old and foolish. In JFK’s case, some will choose to revere him, a small minority will revile him and the rest will be apathetic. The words remain, as does the purple heart, as does enough evidence of his will to create peace, make rapprochement’s and secure detente’s. To stop the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Remember the America that he inherited from old Eisenhower? The one where people of ethnic minorities daren’t hold their heads high? Their lives became a little bit better because this guy and his brother existed and spoke up. They paid in blood for their choices. Perhaps if we take a step back for a moment and ask; have you had a better president / leader since? 
Has America ever recovered? 

 

 

HERE HERE!

Who were the two letters to Marina from?

Wouldn't all mail coming into the U.S. from Russia in 1962 and 1963 have been flagged, opened and examined by agencies and the postal service? And perhaps photo copied before it reached it's addressee?

Humes testified that he did not know why JFK's brain was not weighed during the autopsy. He did not weigh the brain. Or, if it was, why the weight was not listed until weeks later in the final report. That weight was listed as more than an average male brain weight.

Everyone testified that some of JFK's brain was missing. Humes said at one point JFK's brain just fell out into his hands. Inferring it was mush instead of a firmer fibrous covered organ?

These under oath testimony JFK brain discrepancies alone beg serious doubt questions.

Humes sworn testimony to the ARRB in 1996:

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
A. Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
A. I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why.
Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or

Page 75

no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can't recall why--I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that.

On 11/17/2022 at 9:57 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Joe.

 

A number of things were at play. When you say people were falling in love with Jack & Jackie, I think its explained a slightly different way which amounts to what you are saying. 
 

1) People need role models, archetypes, figures to look up to. Both Jack and Jackie filled the role for men and women. He was a cool guy, dressed well, was a war hero, and had the American dream, something to aspire to. Jackie spoke very well, dressed very well, conducted herself well, exuded a European Sophistication, perhaps mirrored your Grace Kelly’s or Audrey Hepburn types. Men and women are always looking at the apex of the tribe to see how they can inprove themselves.
2) Human history and the animal kingdom is filled with dominance hierarchies, the public felt Jack & Jackie were noble or deserved choices. 
3) His compassionate leanings were so appealing to many Americans and the international community alike. A lot of people wanted more fairness. 
4) People who appear sincere and have conviction are incredibly attractive. 
5) One of the most powerful emotions is that of desiring safety, more so in women. At a time of great threat from overseas and McCarthy paranoia, JFK represented rationality, reason, safety and security. He wasn’t a bitter old man with a finger on the armageddon button, he was a guy who had young kids in the whitehouse, kids he wanted to have a world “we all cherish our children's future”. People felt better with him in office (not the racist maniacs, just people who wanted a better life and world). 
6) His marketing was better than any politician that had gone before, the first TV campaign. People felt connected to them, like they knew them and they likes what they saw. 
 

I am sure there are more reasons. 

Your post above is more insightfully expressed and broader scoped than mine.

I envy your perceptive intelligence and writing skills in expanding my post thoughts to a greater deeper understanding and thought provoking degree.

The other aspects to JFK and Jackie in their greatest level adoration appeal you mention are so true and obvious. How did I miss them? 

JFK gave many middle class and poorer Americans, especially Americans of color, real feelings of believing hope that under his leadership their American dream and equal rights citizens aspirations could be a reality, or in the least improved upon.

If a book were written on the subject of JFK and Jackie's unprecedented, almost magical  national and even worldwide admired icon status appeal (including sex symbol ) your post above would be a great introduction imo.

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The usual excuse by lone assassin advocates for Oswald denying everything is that his master plan all along was to be taken into custody and only admit to the assassination at trial. This is the guy who supposedly murdered a cop in a desperate attempt to escape being taken into custody.

So basically, over the span of a couple hours Oswald transformed from a completely irrational deranged psychopath to a man in enough control to give the greatest acting performance of all time in front of the entire world and not once break character throughout days of questioning by some of the best interrogators in the country.

Something does not compute. 

Totally agree.

7 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is an absurd statement. Do you suppose that if Oswald had succeeded in murdering General Walker that he would have loudly proclaimed his guilt all over the greater Dallas metropolitan area?

I disagree.

What's the payback reward for making a splash, if you never let anyone know you did this or when asked, you deny you even did it at all?

So, if Oswald had killed Walker he would never want anyone to know he did this the rest of his life?   

Oswald wanted to make a splash that only he could revel in ... silently to himself?

Oswald wrote about his Russia experience. He wanted to perhaps have this made into a book? You do this for public attention.

Oswald took ridiculously incriminating pictures of himself. Known as the backyard pictures. Again, something to be shown to someone else for attention?

Oswald made himself ridiculously public visible in his New Orleans middle of downtown broad daylight leaflet passing. This splash event was meant to bring him attention. And it did. Even radio and even TV coverage.

But the JFK shooting? The biggest splash action of his life? 

No, I don't want to be known for this one.

I am just a patsy.

Humes testified that he did not know why JFK's brain was not weighed during the autopsy. He did not weigh the brain. Or, if it was, why the weight was not listed until weeks later in the final report. That weight was listed as more than an average male brain weight.

Everyone testified that some of JFK's brain was missing. Humes said at one point JFK's brain just fell out into his hands. Inferring it was mush instead of a firmer fibrous covered organ?

These under oath testimony JFK brain discrepancies alone beg serious doubt questions.